The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-08-20
Specta1 Contributors.
CHRIST BEFORE PLATE.
BY REV. WILLIAM TUCKER, DID.
Mount Gilead, o.


We have shown in previous article,
on "Christ before the Sanhedrin," that
the Sanhedrin as Jewish court, had
no right to try Christ for a capital Of
fence. Under Roman law and practice
this court had no jurisdiction over this
class of crimes. 1t is equally evident
that Plate as Procurator of the Roman
government at Jerusalem, had no right
to try Christ for a purely religious Of
fence, known only to Jewish criminal
law, and not recognized as a crime in
any sense, under either the civil or
criminal law Of Rome. The offence
charged and for which Christ was lille
gally tried, convicted, and sentenced
by the Sanhedrin, for they had no juris
diction, was blasphemy, which consist
ed in the fact of his claiming to be the
Son of God. No one knew better than
Plate, that Roman law did not hold
such an act as that as a criminal Of
fence that deserved capital punishment.
1t not being an offense known to Re
man law, as Roman judge, he had no
jurisdiction of the case.
He then tried Christ, not only with
out authority Of law, but in direct vio-
lation of its principles and provisions.
HeKnew also, That Chrfst's Claim to be
the Messiah, or spiritual King of the
Jews, was in no sense an act of REBEL
ion against the authority of Roman law,
or an attempt to TevolutioniZe the Re-
man government. The only thing he
had the legal right to do was to dismiss
the case as one over which he had no
jurisdiction, because based on an act
not regarded as criminal by the law he
was appointed to administer. 1t was
his duty as an officer that exercised
both judicial and executive functions,
not only to dismiss the charge against
Christ as being one unknown to the
criminal jurisprudence of the Roman
Empire, but to have protected him with
all the power of the government which
he represented, in the enjoyment of all
his rights and privileges as peaceful
citizen. This he failed to do, because
he was a moral coward, time server,
a trimmer, politician without prin-
ciple or honor.
The fact is, Procuratorun the RO-
man law was neither judicial nor exec
utive officer of the government. He
was lawyer, a counselor or advocate
in suit at law. His legal relation was
representative. He represented an
other before the courts in the conduct
of suits, and the transaction of legal
business. But under Roman law as
practiced at home, the procurator GER
tainly did not exercise either judicial or
executive powers. e. Introduction to
Roman Law" by James Hadley, PIP
214, 232) PLATE was ProcuratOr be-
cause he represented the Emperor in
Jerusalem, at that time tributary to
the Roman Empire. AS the officer ap-
pointed to represent the Emperor, he
could legally exercise just such pow
ers as he was clothed with as the repre-
sentative OF his government in harmO-
ny with its laws. With the legal powers
necessary to enable PLATE to fully rep
resent his government, or Emperor, in
the administration Of law, he was
doubtless clothed, and he evidently had
no right to exercise any others. The
trial of Christ by PLATE as described by
the Eyangelists, resemble much more
the lawless action of a mob, than the
judicial proceedings of court of law.
No attention is paid to the legal princi-
pies and forms that governed the prae-
tice of either the Jewish or Roman
courts. The law of evidence is prac-
tically ignored, or wholly disregarded,
and PLATE, like the Sanhedrin, appeals
to Christ to testify for or against him
self, and convicted him, practically,
upon his own testimony, in violation of
both Jewish and Roman law.
In three letters addressed by Plate
to the Emperor, published in the
"ApOchryphal Life of Jesus, " and quot
ed from an appendix to the Gospel Of
Nicodemus, and claimed to be authen-
tic, PLATE admits the pure life, the di-
vine character, the benevolent acts and
supernatural works of Christ, charges
the Jews with bringing against him
false accusations, for the purpose of Sc
curing his conviction upon charges not